Increase productivity at wafer test using probe retest data analysis

ABSTRACT

Disclosed is a method and system for wafer/probe testing of integrated circuit devices after manufacture. The invention begins by testing an initial group of devices (e.g., integrated circuit chips) to produce an initial failing group of devices that failed the testing. The devices in the initial failing group are identified by type of failure. Then, the invention retests the devices in the initial failing group to identify a retested passing group of devices that passed the retesting. Next, the invention analyzes the devices in the retested passing group which allows the invention to produce statistics regarding the likelihood that a failing device that failed the initial testing will pass the retesting according to the type of failure. Then, the invention evaluates these statistics to determine which types of failures have retest passing rates above a predetermined threshold. From this, the invention produces a database comprising an optimized retest table listing the types of defects that are approved for retesting.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No.10/709,729 filed May 25, 2004, which is fully incorporated herein byreference.

BACKGROUND OF INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention

The invention presents a method and system for wafer/probe testingintegrated circuit devices after manufacture which optimizes the retestprocess.

2. Description of the Related Art

Every test facility deals with the problem of not having enough tools tohandle the capacity on high volume products. The options to alleviatethis issue are either to purchase more testers or to reduce test cycletime (increase productivity). Since a new tester costs millions and leadtimes are long, using probe data analysis to increase productivity isthe most cost effective solution.

SUMMARY OF INVENTION

The invention presents a method and system for wafer/probe testingintegrated circuit devices after manufacture. The invention begins bytesting an initial group of devices (e.g., integrated circuit chips) toproduce an initial failing group of devices that failed the testing. Thedevices in the initial failing group are identified by type of failure.Then, the invention retests the devices in the initial failing group toidentify a retested passing group of devices that passed the retesting.Next, the invention analyzes the devices in the retested passing groupwhich allows the invention to produce statistics regarding thelikelihood that a failing device that failed the initial testing willpass the retesting according to the type of failure. Then, the inventionevaluates these statistics to determine which types of failures haveretest passing rates above a predetermined threshold. From this theinvention produces a database comprising an optimized retest tablelisting the types of defects that are approved for retesting.

The invention can also identify types of devices having a predeterminedreduced demand. For example, certain types of devices may no longer bein strong demand, and it may not be worth the cost to retest these typesof devices. Therefore, in one option, the invention can add a listing ofitem types having reduced demand to the database to prevent such reduceddemand items from being retested.

Further, some types of defects may be known to be related to impropertesting. One contributor to test failures is bad or marginal probecontact due to reasons that include poor test setup andmarginal/defective probe hardware. In order to eliminate impropertesting errors, the invention can add types of defects associated withtesting errors to the types of defects approved for retesting.

Using the information in the optimized retest table database, theinvention then tests additional groups of devices to produce additionalfailing groups of devices. The invention only retests devices that haveone of the types of defects approved for retesting, and does not retestthe types of devices for which there is reduced demand. This processoptimizes the retesting of the devices by only retesting for defectsthat are above a predetermined retest passing rate.

The inventive system includes a tester (e.g., probe-type tester), adatabase, and a processor. The database includes an optimized retesttable of the types of defects approved for retesting. Again, the typesof defects approved for retesting are based upon previously acquiredstatistics of which types of failures have retest passing rates (afterinitially failing testing) above a predetermined threshold. In addition,defect types that result from improper testing are included in the typesof defects approved for retesting. Once again, device types havingreduced demand are not sometimes retested. The processor directs thetester to test groups of devices and retests only devices in theadditional failing groups that have one of the types of defects approvedfor retesting, without testing device types that have reduced demand.

Thus, with the invention, the data collected at wafer test is analyzedto optimize limits and rules on retest without sacrificing yield. It isimportant to retest failed devices to avoid discarding properlyfunctioning devices. By not retesting all failed devices and optimizingwhich devices are tested, substantial testing costs are saved.

These, and other, aspects and objects of the present invention will bebetter appreciated and understood when considered in conjunction withthe following description and the accompanying drawings. It should beunderstood, however, that the following description, while indicatingpreferred embodiments of the present invention and numerous specificdetails thereof, is given by way of illustration and not of limitation.Many changes and modifications may be made within the scope of thepresent invention without departing from the spirit thereof, and theinvention includes all such modifications.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

The invention will be better understood from the following detaileddescription with reference to the drawings, in which:

FIG. 1 is a flow diagram illustrating a preferred method of theinvention;

FIG. 2 is a table showing aspects of the invention;

FIG. 3 is a table showing aspects of the invention;

FIG. 4 is a table showing aspects of the invention;

FIG. 5 is a table showing aspects of the invention;

FIG. 6 is a table showing aspects of the invention;

FIG. 7 is a table showing aspects of the invention;

FIG. 8 is a table showing aspects of the invention;

FIG. 9 is a table showing aspects of the invention;

FIG. 10 is a table showing aspects of the invention;

FIG. 11 is a system embodiment of the invention; and

FIG. 12 is a schematic hardware diagram upon which the invention couldoperate.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The present invention and the various features and advantageous detailsthereof are explained more fully with reference to the nonlimitingembodiments that are illustrated in the accompanying drawings anddetailed in the following description. It should be noted that thefeatures illustrated in the drawings are not necessarily drawn to scale.Descriptions of well-known components and processing techniques areomitted so as to not unnecessarily obscure the present invention. Theexamples used herein are intended merely to facilitate an understandingof ways in which the invention may be practiced and to further enablethose of skill in the art to practice the invention. Accordingly, theexamples should not be construed as limiting the scope of the invention.

Every microelectronics wafer test facility deals with the problem of nothaving enough tools to handle the capacity on high volume products. Theoptions to alleviate this issue are to purchase more testers, which canbe very expensive, and have long lead times. The invention is a newprocess that optimizes retest by minimizing the number of chipsretested, and maximizing the number of customer shippable parts. Theinvention increases productivity and reduces test cycle time, and alsooptimizes retest rates.

The invention performs the retest process to maximize the number of goodchips at wafer test. A second pass test is required to recover anyadditional deliverable chips. The traditional methods retest all devicesthat fail the first pass test. One type of defect, Test Generated YieldLoss (TGYL), includes failures that may have been induced by testoperation (i.e., for example, contact fail sort; operator setup problem,or bad probes).

The overall flow of the invention is shown in FIG. 1. In item 100, theinvention performs the initial testing, and retests all devices thatfailed the first pass testing results. The testing (first pass) andretesting (second pass) results are shown in spreadsheet form in FIG. 2.These tables (spreadsheets) identify the lot and wafer that was tested(first two columns), the X and Y coordinates of the area of the wafertested (next two columns) and the tested area's name (suffix column).The column entitled “sort” refers to the type, or sort, of defect.Different types of defects identified during the testing process aregiven different numbers. The last column is a shorthand description ofthe defect type. Note that a “1” defect means that the area or devicedid not fail the test and is “good.”

In item 102 in FIG. 1, the invention creates the retest analysis datasetwhich is shown in FIG. 3, and which combines the data from the first(FIG. 2) and second pass (FIG. 3) testing results into a single table.Note that separate columns are used to identify the different types ofdefects seen in the first and second passes. Items that passed the firsttesting are not retested as indicated by an asterisk in the second passcolumn.

In item 104, the invention runs a second pass status frequency analysis,which is shown in FIG. 5. In FIG. 5, the invention lists each type ofdefect by number (sort) and description and shows how many of thesedefects were found. The “bad” column counts the number of failures thatwere repeated during the retest, which presumably indicates a truedefect. The number in the “Cat 2 Good” column represents the number ofdevices that had some defects, but were good enough to operate, althoughpossibly with limited functionality or reduced speed/performance. Forexample, many of the devices produced (chips or sections of chips) haveredundant portions, or the devices need to have all areas formedcorrectly to operate at the highest speed (or provide the highestperformance). However, some portions of the devices may have defectswhile the remainder of the device is defect free. Some customers willfind these poorer performing or partially defective devices acceptableand may receive such devices at a reduced cost. Therefore, while the“category 2 good” devices underperform the completely defect free “good”devices, the category 2 good devices still have some demand (although areduced demand). The “Good” column shows the number of devices thatrecovered (i.e., became good) in the 2nd pass test. The “total” columnis the total number of defects of that type that occurred during thefirst test. Therefore, as shown in FIG. 5, for certain types of defects(e.g., sort 2, 3, etc.) a substantial number of devices retested asbeing good or category 2 good, which makes retesting for these types ofdefects worth the cost of retesting. To the contrary, other types ofdefects (e.g., sort 21, 22, 40, etc.) did not have as high a retestpassing rate (or had a zero retest passing rate) and it may not be worthretesting devices with such types of defects.

Next, in item 106, the invention obtains TGLY fail sorts from historicaldata, which are shown in FIG. 6. The types of defects which are notnormally associated with TGLY type failures are shown in FIG. 7. Theclassifications show in the drawings are merely an example of onespecific type of device and its associated failures and the invention isnot limited to this example, but instead is applicable to any type oftesting and commonly known defects that result from improper testing.

In item 108, the invention creates the sort recovery dataset, an exampleof which is shown in FIG. 8. FIG. 8 is similar to FIG. 5, except FIG. 8includes the TGLY data. In item 110, the invention obtains productsupply/demand information that is shown in FIG. 9. A type of devicehaving a “Good” rating is in high demand, while a device having acategory 2 rating (Cat 2 Good) is determined to have a reduced demand.The criteria for determining whether a type of device will have a highor reduced demand will vary from device to device and from industry toindustry, and, as discussed above, is based upon how many defects thedevice has.

In item 112, the invention creates the optimized retest table that isshown in FIG. 10 by adding the TGYL information to that shown in FIG. 8.In addition, the optimized retest table includes a “retest sort” columnwhich identifies whether each type of defect is approved for retestingupon initial test failure. The invention evaluates these statistics todetermine which types of failures have retest passing rates above apredetermined threshold and labels those types of defects as beingapproved with a “Y” in the retest sort column. In addition TGYL typedefects can also be approved for retest and given a “Y” in the retestsort column Regardless of their retest passing rates. If desired, onlythe higher demand type devices (“Good column”) that have passing ratesabove a predetermined threshold are retested and the reduced demanddevices (“Cat 2 Good column) are not retested.

As shown in FIG. 11, the inventive system includes a tester 150 (e.g.,probe-type tester), a database 160, and a processor 170. The database160 includes an optimized retest table of the types of defects approvedfor retesting. Again, the types of defects approved for retesting isbased upon previously acquired statistics of which types of failureshave retest passing rates (after initially failing testing) above apredetermined threshold. In addition, defect types that result fromimproper testing can be included in the types of defects approved forretesting. Once again, device types having reduced demand are sometimesnot retested. The processor 170 directs the tester 150 to test groups ofdevices and retest only devices in the additional failing groups thathave one of the types of defects approved for retesting, without testingdevice types that have reduced demand.

Stated differently, the system includes means for testing (the tester150) an initial group of devices to produce an initial failing group ofdevices that failed the testing, wherein the devices in the initialfailing group are identified by type of failure; means for retesting(the tester 150) the devices in the initial failing group to identify aretested passing group of devices that passed the retesting; means foranalyzing (the processor 170) the devices in the retested passing groupto produce statistics regarding the likelihood that a failing devicewill pass the retesting according to the type of failure; means forevaluating (the processor 170) the statistics to determine which typesof failures have retest passing rates above a predetermined threshold toproduce types of defects approved for retesting, and storing the same inthe means for storing (the database 160); means for testing (the tester150) additional groups of devices to produce additional failing groupsof devices that failed the testing of the additional groups; and meansfor retesting (the tester 150) only devices in the additional failinggroups that have one of the types of defects approved for retesting.

A representative hardware environment for practicing the presentinvention is depicted in FIG. 12, which illustrates a typical hardwareconfiguration of an information handling/computer system in accordancewith the subject invention, having at least one processor or centralprocessing unit (CPU) 11. CPUs 11 are interconnected via system bus 12to random access memory (RAM) 14, read-only memory (ROM) 16, aninput/output (I/O) adapter 18 for connecting peripheral devices, such asdisk units 21 and tape drives 40 to bus 12, user interface adapter 22for connecting keyboard 24, mouse 26, speaker 28, microphone 32, and/orother user interface devices such as touch screen device (not shown) tobus 12, communication adapter 34 for connecting the information handlingsystem to a data processing network, and display adapter 36 forconnecting bus 12 to display device 38. A program storage devicereadable by the disk or tape units, is used to load the instructionswhich operate the invention which is loaded also loaded onto thecomputer system.

Thus, with the invention, the data collected at wafer test is analyzedto optimize limits and rules on retest without sacrificing yield. It isimportant to retest failed devices to avoid discarding properlyfunctioning devices. By not retesting all failed devices, substantialtesting costs are saved. Reduction in the number of devices retestedalso reduces the number of touchdowns of the front end hardware.

The methodology of the invention begins by testing an initial group ofdevices (e.g., integrated circuit chips) to produce an initial failinggroup of devices that failed the testing. The devices in the initialfailing group are identified by type of failure. Then, the inventionretests the devices in the initial failing group to identify a retestedpassing group of devices that passed the retesting. Next, the inventionanalyzes the devices in the retested passing group which allows theinvention to produce statistics regarding the likelihood that a failingdevice that failed the initial testing will pass the retesting accordingto the type of failure. Then, the invention evaluates these statisticsto determine which types of failures have retest passing rates above apredetermined threshold. From this the invention produces a database 160comprising an optimized retest table listing the types of defects thatare approved for retesting.

The invention can also identify types of devices having a predeterminedreduced demand. For example, devices having a certain number of defectsmay no longer be in strong demand and it may not be worth the cost toretest these types of devices. Therefore, in one option, the inventioncan add a listing of item types having reduced demand to the database160 to prevent such reduced demand items from being retested.

Further, some types of defects may be known to be related to impropertesting. One contributor to test failures is bad or marginal probecontact due to reasons that include poor test setup andmarginal/defective probe hardware. In order to eliminate impropertesting errors, the invention can add types of defects associated withtesting errors to the types of defects approved for retesting.

Using the information in the optimized retest table database 160, theinvention then tests additional groups of devices to produce additionalfailing groups of devices. The invention only retests devices that haveone of the types of defects approved for retesting, and may not retestthe types of devices for which there is the reduced demand. This processoptimizes the retesting of the devices by only retesting for defectsthat have above a predetermined rate of retest passing.

In the example shown above, the invention reduced the chip retest rateby up to 80% when compared to retesting all failing devices. Theinvention can be performed without spending an excessive amount of moneyon new testers, and without impacting customer deliverables (i.e., noyield loss).

Some advantage of the invention vs. buying/leasing testers to alleviatetest capacity issues can save in tester purchase/lease/maintenancecosts. In one example, the invention takes less than one month toimplement vs. 3-6 month lead time in obtaining new testers. Theinvention saves money in test time which alleviates test capacityissues. The invention improves delivery time to the customer by reducingtest cycle time (fewer chips are retested). The retests are onlyperformed on defect types that are proven to recover to customerdeliverable devices. Thus, the invention increases the number ofcustomer deliverable parts. The invention may recover parts that weresorted as an atypical TGYL fail sort during the first pass test.

While the invention has been described in terms of preferredembodiments, those skilled in the art will recognize that the inventioncan be practiced with modification within the spirit and scope of theappended claims.

1. A method for testing integrated circuit devices after manufacture,said method comprising: testing a group of devices to produce a failinggroup of devices that failed said testing, wherein said devices in saidfailing group are identified by type of failure; and retesting onlydevices in said failing group that have a type of defect approved forretesting so that said retesting process is optimized.
 2. The method inclaim 1, further comprising retesting devices having types of defectsassociated with testing.
 3. The method in claim 1, wherein said testingprocess comprises probe type testing.
 4. The method in claim 1, whereinsaid retesting only devices in said failing group that have a type ofdefect approved for retesting comprises accessing a listing of types ofdefects approved for retesting, wherein said listing comprises anoptimized retest table.
 5. The method in claim 1, wherein said type ofdefect approved for retesting is based upon previously acquiredstatistics of previous testing of the same type of device.
 6. A systemfor testing integrated circuit devices after manufacture, said systemcomprising: a tester adapted to test devices; a database comprisingtypes of defects approved for retesting, wherein said types of defectsapproved for retesting are based upon previously acquired statistics ofwhich types of failures have retest passing rates, after initiallyfailing testing, above a predetermined threshold; and a processor incommunication with said tester and said database, wherein said processoris adapted to direct said tester to test a group of devices to produce afailing group of devices that failed said testing, wherein saidprocessor is further adapted to direct said tester to retest onlydevices in said failing group that have one of said types of defectsapproved for retesting.
 7. The system in claim 6, wherein said databaseincludes types of defects associated with testing errors within saidtypes of defects approved for retesting.
 8. The system in claim 6,wherein said tester comprise a probe-type tester.
 9. The system in claim6, wherein said processor optimizes said retesting of said devices whencontrolling said tester.
 10. The system in claim 6, wherein saiddatabase comprises an optimized retest table.
 11. The system in claim 6,wherein said statistics of said types of defects relate to the same typeof device being tested.
 12. A program storage device readable by acomputer and tangibly embodying a program of instructions executable bysaid computer in order to perform a method of testing integrated circuitdevices after manufacture, said method comprising: directing a tester totest a group of devices to produce a failing group of devices thatfailed said testing, wherein said devices in said failing group areidentified by type of failure; and directing said tester to retest onlydevices in said failing group that have a type of defect approved forretesting so as to optimize retesting.
 13. The program storage device inclaim 12, wherein said method further comprises retesting devices havingtypes of defects associated with testing.
 14. The program storage devicein claim 12, wherein said testing process comprises probe type testing.15. The program storage device in claim 12, wherein said retesting onlydevices in said failing group that have a type of defect approved forretesting comprises accessing a listing of types of defects approved forretesting, wherein said listing comprises an optimized retest table. 16.The program storage device in claim 12, wherein said type of defectapproved for retesting is based upon previously acquired statistics ofprevious testing of the same type of device.
 17. A system for testingintegrated circuit devices after manufacture, said system comprising: atester adapted to test an initial group of devices to produce an initialfailing group of devices that failed said testing of said initial group,wherein said devices in said initial failing group are identified bytype of failure and wherein said tester is further adapted to restestall said devices in said initial failing group to identify a retestedpassing group of devices that passed said retesting; and, a processor incommunication with said tester and adapted to analyze said devices insaid retested passing group to produce statistics regarding thelikelihood that a failing device will pass said retesting according tosaid type of failure and to evaluate said statistics to determine whichtypes of failures have retest passing rates above a predeterminedthreshold to produce a listing of types of defects approved forretesting, wherein said tester is further adapted to retest only devicesin said additional failing group that have one of said types of defectsapproved for retesting.
 18. The system in claim 17, wherein said testercomprise a probe-type tester.
 19. The system in claim 17, furthercomprising a database adapted to store said listing and wherein saidlisting comprises an optimized retest table.
 20. The system in claim 17,wherein said initial group of devices and said additional groups ofdevices comprise the same type of device.